Monday, May 23, 2016

Storm Clouds Are Gathering . . .



. . . and I’m increasingly uneasy.  This Presidential Campaign has been changing from funny, to ridiculous, to worrisome, to frightening, to hunker-down-in-your-bunker.  I’m not just talking about Donald Trump, either.

No matter who wins the upcoming election, the White House will be under siege.  Our best hope is that the entire country, and for that matter the rest of the world, will not be subject to the slings and arrows directed at (or generated by) our new President, no matter whom he or she turns out to be. 


Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive (always to be read as presumptuous, or preposterous, or preputial) Republican candidate, one can predict three things.  One, the general election campaign will be venomous and puerile enough to make many voters seriously embrace those pledges to move to Canada (investment hint:  Maritime Provinces real estate).  Two, as there’s an almost fifty-fifty chance that Trump will become the next United States President, this prospect is sufficiently terrifying to make many voters consider changing their cocktail libation of choice from beer, wine, or bourbon to Drano, rat poison, or elixir of shroom.  Third, the rest of the world will become more and more nervous, seeking gathering-storm shelters (economic, militaristic) potentially inimical to United States interests.

What might fall from the oppo sky during the General Election campaign?  More about Trump’s significant mob ties in New York and New Jersey.  More concerning Trump’s lying (imagine that!) about his wealth and success (this might be the most damaging to the Trumpernaut).  Certainly more about Trump’s misogyny, racism, xenophobia, serial contradictions, willful ignorance, yadda yadda, But as RNC chairman Reince Preibus recently dribbled:  “People just don’t care.”  Well, some people don’t – the Trump fans (one shouldn’t confuse fans with political supporters) – but some actually might. As might our allies abroad.  In fact, as they already do.

It’s harder to predict in what specific ways a Trump Presidency would be horrible. Lightning strikes without fear or favor. Would Trump start a nuclear war (let’s begin at the top of the disaster food chain)?  Would he wreck our, and the world’s, economy?  Would he declare martial law to enforce deportations of Mexicans and Muslims and Mujeres (of whatever ethnic background, who try to avail themselves of health care options or equal pay claims or who are less-than-perfect-tens)?  Would middle-of-the-night twitter storms replace news conferences or measured diplomatic negotiations?  Who knows?  Except that a shitstorm of biblical proportions would be in the offing.


Or take Bernie Sanders (take him back to Vermont, please, or to the ineffective Senate backbench that he’s occupied for decades).  With every cockamamie caucus win or the-numbers-still-don’t-add-up delegate fight or the-game-is-rigged rant, he has morphed incrementally from geriatric rebel with a solid reformist cause to fame-addled, nihilistic crankypuss.  Add his apparent encouragement of his followers’ self-righteous incivility and intractability . . . and his scorched-earth policy vis-à-vis the Democratic Party, to which he has absolutely no allegiance . . . and you have a stormy scenario that will either help elect Donald Trump, god forbid, or will be background bombast for the inevitable attempts to undermine a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Let’s suppose that Sanders’ super-delegate hypocrisy succeeds, and he becomes the Democratic candidate.  His current (relative) popularity will plummet as Republicans drop the other Socialist shoes.  I mean, he honeymooned in the Soviet Union and supported the Sandinistas, amirite?  Not to mention that his primo advisor (and wife) bankrupted a nice small Vermont college after tuition was raised precipitously.  Tell me again how we’re going to afford free higher education for all? 

Then let’s suppose that, somehow, Sanders wins in November.  What would his presidency look like?  Total chaos larded with total ineffectiveness.  His election would also involve a balance-of-power shift in Congress, particularly in the Senate – which means that professional Democratic politicians (who might be tools of this or that but who tend to be pragmatists) would try to rein in Sanders’ unicorn-drawn down-with-class-inequities chariot.  Most Senators, of both parties, are fairly rich and have even richer donor friends. Thus most of Sanders’ proposals would go nowhere, and his most ardent followers would be outraged.  Protests would occupy the news, Sanders would wave his arms, and nothing would get accomplished, setting the stage for tsunami-sized Republican victories in 2018 and 2020.


Now to the crapstorm gathering around Hillary Clinton.  It will be a dark and stormy night, or if one is theologically inclined, a dark night of the soul.  We’re all aware of the usual Hillzentric targets:  emails and Benghazi being the most recent, Whitewater and Vince Foster being revivable blasts from the past . . . oh, what’s the point: the woman has been a politician in the public eye for decades, so there’s a lot of material blowing in the wind.

But what Donald Trump is amorally equipped to do is to focus his blasts on Bill Clinton – not on his Presidential record but on his can’t-keep-it-zipped record.  It’s already happening:  Bill as rapist, Bill as the ‘worst’ abuser of women in history, and Hillary as evil dungeon-mistress enabler.  Like worms that appear on sidewalks after a summer rainstorm, reputed Bill Clinton victims are magically resurfacing to reiterate and embroider their unadjudicated claims (see the Bill with the cigar ad released today).

The worst is yet to come.  It’s the Jeffrey Epstein connection.  Epstein was a very wealthy ‘friend of Bill’ with a convenient private plane on which the former President hitched rides – maybe 10 times, maybe 27 times, but enough to be noteworthy.  Noteworthy because Epstein is a convicted child molester who ‘employed’ underage girls to ‘service’ himself and his pals onboard his jet (dubbed ‘The Lolita Express’) and on his private Caribbean island (dubbed “Orgy Island”).  And because a source of Epstein’s mysterious wealth is reputed, in some circles, to be attributable to hidden cameras that provided the shadowy financier with blackmail material. 



So far, there’s no evidence that Bill Clinton enjoyed Epstein’s nymphets, nor that Hillary Clinton booked her husband’s passage on the Lolita Express.  But as guilt-by-association-and-innuendo is a preferred Trumpian tactic, simply raining down ‘information’ about Bill’s association with Epstein might be sufficient to drown Hillary.  What category of sleazebags is more reviled than pedophiles (Epstein technically is an ephebophilac, an adult whose sexual interest is in mid-to-late adolescent minors)? 

The only thing that might protect Hillary Clinton from this looming tempest is that Donald Trump is also connected with Jeffrey Epstein – they were social friends, Epstein was a member of Mar-a-Lago (from whence his first teenaged ‘sex slave,’ Virginia Roberts, was recruited), Trump was subpoenaed in a child-sex case against Epstein, and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, formerly a Lolita Express frequent flyer and now a Trump supporter, was named as a molester by Virginia Roberts herself.

If Hillary Clinton survives the mudslide coming her way, her Presidency will be under constant assault.  There’s nothing to suggest that the same partisan mean-spiritedness that motivated Republican obstructionism vis-à-vis Barack Obama will not rein (or rain) supreme vis-à-vis a President Hillary Clinton.  The primal sin of Being President While Black will be replaced by the primal sin of Being President While Female (and a Clinton).

No matter who wins in November, it’s going to be a rough ride.  Batten down the hatches.




Sunday, May 15, 2016

Cocktail Hour Rants Archive #1





About a month ago, I started posting on Facebook short opinion pieces that I wrote during cocktail hour (roughly, between five and seven o’clock EDT).  Some of these concern random peeves about sloppy language or how the Chicago Cubs are almost never shown on national TV.  Most address political news that penetrated my irritation horizon during any given day . . . and that I wasn’t moved to expand into a full-fledged, essay-length blog.


I’m compiling these a la minute rants about politics here, mainly for my own convenience (so I can find things without scrolling down my Facebook page) but also for my blog readers who are not Facebook users.  Here’s the first installment.  If you’d like to read the non-political rants and the comments they generated, they’re sprinkled throughout my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/deb.wyrick) along with other goodies like ‘bad gospel music album covers’ contests.


April 25


Today's cocktail hour rant: the 'no competition' pact between Cruz and Kasich has to be about the dumbest move in a campaign season defined by dumb. Not only is it too late, it's too public. Trump has been chortling about it all day, as it reinforces his braying complaints about a rigged system. Further, it has spurred him to embrace his inner Triumph the Insult Dog even more tightly, yoking Lyin' Ted to Piggy Kasich ("I have never seen a human being eat in such a disgusting fashion"). If flop sweat took down Rubio, couldn't bad table manners take down Kasich?


April 27


So much to choose from, so little time between drinks. Tonight's cocktail hour rant: listening to the interminable 'event' in which Ted Cruz announced Carly Fiorina as his potential running mate, I counted about umpty billion references to God, faith, prayer, and religious values. Yoking Dominionist theology with radical American exceptionalism a la Cruz is a very bad idea, plus Fiorina seems not to be a current churchgoer, so shut up, Ted. Also, I can't predict what Trump's insult moniker for Carly will be: Cashiered Carly? Triple-loser Carly? Fiorina the Failure? None seems catchy enough.


April 28


It's hailing outside, which doesn't make for a cozy cocktail hour. Due to local conditions, this will be a local-ish rant. I finally read the entire transcript of State Senator Buck 'keep North Carolina straight' Newton's pep talk. Not only is he bigoted and ignorant, he makes absolutely no logical sense. I believe he's channeled Sarah Palin's oratorical style. "Now it’s been said that there are many, many, many, many more sexual predators on the sex offender list than there are transgender people. And we can all feel sympathy for folks who are having difficult times, because we all know folks that have a difficult time, whether folks are struggling with drugs, are struggling with their marriages, figuring out what it is that they’re supposed to be doing in life. We can all have sympathy for that. But that does not mean that we should expose OUR WIVES AND OUR SISTERS AND OUR CHILDREN to the sexual predators in the bathrooms."


May 2


It's back to the regular week and cocktail-hour rants. Today: the kvetching by Trump, primarily, and Sanders, secondarily, about not getting their 'fair' share of super/unbound delegates and how raw vote totals should be the only factor that matters in elections. If one reads this country's seminal documents (John Adams, Federalist Papers, etc.), one realizes that the Founding Fathers were wary of 'the Tyranny of the Majority' and tried to craft barriers against this possibility (the Electoral College, Separation of Powers). The United States has survived as a (mixed) Democracy because it has tried to protect the rights of minorities (racial, religious, gender, ideological) against just this tyranny. Certainly, the ways we do this have been flawed and thus deserve scrutiny and adjustment as times and demographics change. But the principle remains central to what we are as a country. What do people think would have been the outcome it women's suffrage had been put to a majority-rule vote (all men), or if desegregation of schools had been an issue decided via plebiscite?


May 6


Friday night light rant: anyone else as disgusted as I am by the tepid rollout of Trump endorsements by Republican politicians? Particularly by those whom Trump has insulted and mocked and lied outrageously about? On a related note, I think Little Marco the sweathog's endorsement may signal his willingness to be the sacrificial Hispanic Veep. Thank goodness for the weekend: have a good one!

May 9


Monday's cocktail-hour rant could be about nothing other than 'Governor' Pat McCrory's insane and insanely expensive lawsuit against the DOJ. We expect politicians to look out for their own and their party's interests, but we don't expect them to destroy an entire economy in so doing. This is a shameless ploy to delay what ultimately will be the overturning/delegitimatizing of HB2 and to deflect responsibility for this mess onto an 'over-reaching' Department of Justice, good fodder for the November elections. The DOJ position, in its counter-lawsuit, is fairly simple: that Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination based on sex apply to HB2, as the category of 'sex' includes gender identification as well as biological gender. Attorney General Lynch's statement this afternoon was strong, clear, historically informed, and morally righteous. McCrory's statements are weak, waffling, myopic, and morally revolting.

May 10



My who-cares-about-today’s-primaries rant is spurred by Jon Stewart’s characterization of Donald Trump. “He’s a man-baby,” the former Daily Show host said yesterday in an interview with David Axelrod. "He has the physical countenance of a man, and a baby's temperament and hands.” True enough, but Stewart omitted a key ingredient of Trump’s infantilism: vocabulary and syntax that would embarrass most four-year-olds. When Trump was asked about Sadiq Khan’s election as London’s Mayor, the presumptive candidate replied, “I think it’s a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job because frankly that would be very, very good.” Asked why, Mr. Trump said, “Because I think if he does a great job, it will really — you lead by example, always lead by example. If he does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific thing.” Evidently, the candidate remembered his Freshman English course after the first sentence and switched up the ‘very goods’ with (surprise!) ‘great’ and ‘terrific.’ The flaccid word ‘thing’ (a Trump favorite) is particularly babyish. Children in the process of acquiring language often call clumps of ‘things’ by a single pronounceable syllable (when my daughter started to talk, ‘bah’ signified bottle and blanket and ball and bath and baby); later they use a word they know to refer to all items in a larger category (‘doggie’ means a dog but also a cat, a squirrel, and a pony). After almost seven decades of living on this earth, Donald Trump still talks like a toddler, and reasons like one, and probably won’t eat his veggies either.


May 11



Hump day cocktail hour rant: Ted Nugent posting a fake video showing Bernie Sanders shooting Hillary Clinton during a gun control debate. Yes, that's a subject or topic, not a rant. But NRA Board member and Trump supporter Nugent is so vile you can all supply your own rant. Nugent was investigated by the Secret Service for 2012 threats against President Obama; it's time to start a new investigation and shut down this 2nd-Amendment waving fountain of filth.


May 13



This Friday’s cocktail hour rant concerns today’s breathlessly reported “Breaking News’ – Donald Trump will NOT self-fund his general election campaign. Who could have guessed, since the self-funding, beholden-to-no-one, down-with-Super-PACs spiel is central to his phone-it-in interviews and rally ramblings? Well, everyone should have seen this coming. Trump does not have the liquid assets to pay for a Presidential run, and he’s a notorious tightwad. He’s the master of earned (aka ‘free’) media and has spent orders of magnitude less money than his competitors on the campaign to date, including far less than a million dollars of his actual fortune. The rest of his ‘self-funding’ has taken the form of loans: from him to his campaign, often to aspects of his campaign that he ‘owns,’ (like reimbursements for travel on the Trumplane or office rent in his own building), so it’s pretty much borrowing from himself to pay himself. Plus, loans are meant to be repaid, which is what the new dispensation of raising big money will allow, as it will generate a pile of other people’s moolah from which Trump can pay himself back, even though he just announced he has ‘no intention’ of doing so (and we all know how set-in-concrete Trump’s ‘intentions’ are). Or there’s always bankruptcy. Either way, it’s a Ponzi scheme ratifying the Donald’s prediction sixteen years ago: “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”